Tweet
Does anybody know where i can go to find the specs for walker instrumets. I have been to the walker technical website and all that is there is theatre organs. Thanks for the help!!!
-
-
Re: walker instruments
[quote user="TierceFornitureIV"]Does anybody know where i can go to find the specs for walker instrumets. I have been to the walker technical website and all that is there is theatre organs. Thanks for the help!!![/quote]</P>
They do have an alternate site for the classic side, but it has almost no information on it. It's here:</P>
http://walkertechnical.com/</P>
I was told a few days ago that they are going to make the site better soon. I think if you get some of their CDs, there might be stoplists in the liner notes.</P>
Bill</P> -
Re: walker instruments
What is the price range for these kind of instruments? I hope that they are not as expensive as M&Os.Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
[quote user="TierceFornitureIV"]What is the price range for these kind of instruments? I hope that they are not as expensive as M&Os.[/quote]</P>
I'm pretty sure that they are much less expensive than M&O. However, from what I have read, they are noticeably more expensive than Allen.</P>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
I (and a few others from the organ committee) will be meeting with a Walker rep next Monday to discuss their recommendations for our sanctuary. We will also discuss which other Walker organs are appropriate for us to play in the area.</p>
After that meetings I might be able to give you a little more information.</p>
-Jon
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
[quote user="radagast"]
I'm pretty sure that they are much less expensive than M&O. However, from what I have read, they are noticeably more expensive than Allen.</p>
[/quote]</p>
I'll go out on a limb here and say that they are noticeably <u>much more</u> expensive than Phoenix... but you never really know what goes into the price of an organ, do you? A local church near us went with a Walker, reported to cost over twice what our Phoenix cost. Yes, it has 5 more stops, more amps and speakers, and they could afford drawknobs rather than tabstops, but over twice as much? Oh and our Phoenix has 3 separate voicings... I'm sure the folks who spent that much love their Walker, but I remain unconvinced that it was worth twice as much. Then again, you've got to consider the source of this opinion!
</p>
Andy
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Andy,</p>
Have you heard any Walkers? I haven't yet, but am excited to, from what I've heard of their speaker technology and sampling. Their speakers are designed according to the rank they are meant to reproduce. I.E. Diapason speakers fire both forwards, and upwards. I'm not sure what they do for flutes. So, I am thinking it could be a pretty good approach to reproducing organ sounds.</p>
We are still interested in Phoenix as well as Allen, and would like to hear some of those as well. I am going to be meeting with the Phoenix rep ASAP and we'll try to figure out where we will go to hear organs after he sees our sanctuary. It is quite possible I may be asking you if we can hear yours!</p>
-Jon</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Jon,</p>
I can tell you that the Walker tone generating system is superior to either Allen or Phoenix. If one starts with a superior tone generator, the potential is there to be a superior result. A lot of Walker samples are just excellent as well. I'm not saying good results can't be obtained by Allen or Phoenix, just that Walker can be better. It is no wonder that Walker has the pipe organ digital augmentation business pretty much locked up. My guess is that they have about 80% or more of that business.
</p>
Walker consoles also are very much like pipe organ consoles. They look extremely solid, and do not try to look compact like most digi organs do.</p>
As to price, Walker is not the cheapest, but their prices are not that out of line compared to Allen.</p>
One thing about Walker I do know, they are very busy. A sign they are doing something right. Most organ companies these days are in slow mode, sales having dropped off significantly.</p>
AV
</p>
</p>
</p>
</p>
</p>
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
>> I can tell you that the Walker tone generating system is superior to
either Allen or Phoenix.</p>
<font color="blue">Not to be argumentative, but can I ask how you know that? Can we see a paper with a study of the 3 tone generation systems?
</font></p>
>> A lot of Walker
samples are just excellent as well. I'm not saying good results can't
be obtained by Allen or Phoenix, just that Walker can be better. </p>
<font color="blue">Again, not to be argumentative, but better in what way?</font>
</p>
>> Walker consoles also are very much like pipe
organ consoles. They look extremely solid, and do not try to look
compact like most digi organs do.</p>
<font color="blue">As are Phoenix consoles. Thy are built like tanks. Their web site shows various styles and you can clearly see the care they put into woodworking and finish of their consoles.</font></p>
>> As to price, Walker is not the cheapest, but their prices are not that out of line compared to Allen.</p>
<font color="blue">And again, not to be argumentative, but I believe both are noticeably more expensive than Phoenix, based on our 2004 organ search. Organs with Walker electronics from Buch, Wicks, and a small independant organ builder were consistently more expensive, much more expensive.
</font></p>
>> One
thing about Walker I do know, they are very busy. A sign they are
doing something right. Most organ companies these days are in slow
mode, sales having dropped off significantly. </p>
<font color="blue">As is Phoenix... they are, as far as I know, incredibly busy, because the market is recognizing what a terrific instrument they produce.</font></p>
There are smaller organ builders who do not produce huge numbers of instruments, but produce marvelous instruments, Walker, M&O, Phoenix, Buch (I've not heard their instruments)... to say one is better than the other is such a tricky question... </p>
Are we comparing based on the absolute best they ever installled (Opus One versus Walker's and Phoenix's top end installs?), are we comparing what $100,000 would get you from the 3 manufacturers, or are we just saying that based on hearing various instruments from the companies(and not on CD!), X is better than Y and both are better than Z?? Even in these 3 cases, we've never heard instruments with the same stoplists from all the manufacturers in the same space, so it's difficult to be objective. Don't get me wrong, Walker makes a fine instrument. I went to the local dedication of a Walker in my area, and it sounded very good. Was it 2x better than our Phoenix? I personally don't think so. I prefer the voicings on our PT346 to their American Classic sound, but that's what makes this whole thing interesting! Thank goodness for competition! We have an instrument that fit our musical style (Episcopal traditional hymns), fit our space, and fit our budget. If we had some financial angel who dropped their lottery winnings on us with the advice that they'd really like a real pipe organ, then we might have made a different decision! </p>
Each church going through this process has different conditions with respect to what they need and want. Some may need a new instrument next week. I'm not sure any of the small guys can deliver that fast. Some may not be able to travel to hear the smaller manufacturers. So we get back to my advice I throw out along the OrganForum way, take your time in doing a search!!! This is a lot of money, don't be in a hurry to spend it! I am also a huge advocate of working with the smaller companies, places where if you send them an email or call, they know who you are without pulling out the computer record of install #4761-B-227...
</p>
Andy</p>
Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
How about a large [fill in the blank] vs. a small Walker? If the Walker sounds more like the real thing maybe one wouldn't desire a third or fourth manual, four stoplists, etc. Someone out there could probably give us details about Walker superiority in terms of sampling rate, length of samples, number of DACs, etc.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I also like working with small companies. (When I emailed Estonia, manufacturer of my piano, I got Dr. Laul himself.) However, some large companies do keep track of their instruments. When I contacted Allen they emailed me with the date our 1957 Allen was built. That would be no surprise for Casavant but try it with Hammond, Baldwin, Wurlitzer, Conn, or any other electronic manufacturer from 1957.</DIV>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Andy,</p>
Since you did due dilligence and selected Phoenix, I'm sure you can give all the technical details of the Atmel Dream chip that Phoenix uses in their organs. You can tell us why the Dream Chip, which used to be standard computer sound card technology, is a good platform to build organs with, etc. Maybe you could give us details such as signal to noise ratios, sample lengths, # of samples per stop, speed of system data flow, audio channelling data, etc. You will find that it is that kind of info. which is kept under wraps.
</p>
What I will say at this point is that Walker's sampling rate is more than double what Phoenix uses. What this does is give their samples and by extension much better high frequency content. Also, with a Walker, holding big chords on say reeds, it doesn't develop the typical electronic organ mono-color, there is actually a visceral realism to the sound.</p>
As for Allen, their current organs are just updates of the Rennaisance organs. They still use minimal number of samples, short samples do a lot of processing, and flog a fancy reverb system (to cover up for tone generating shortcomings), use too few audio channels, etc. Just hold a chord on an Allen for 10 to 15 seconds, and listen to the tone, and you can tell it isn't up there with M&O and Walker.</p>
One other thing I notice, is that those who speak highly of Phoenix, spend a lot of time talking about cost, that they cost less, or more to the point, you get more for less. That is fair enough, but doesn't address total quality of instrument. One way to get deals is to price one's instrument lower than your competition. Usually, it doesn't work to bid really low, especially if one builds in low volume and custom. Generally, it means no money for marketing, R&D, and hurts future prospects of the business.</p>
I'm just happy that in general the quality of organ installs is getting better, as the potential is higher than it used to be. Generally it is the smaller builders that do the best work, as they are more hands on, are more creative, and their business depends on buyers who appreciate superior results. I'm all for smaller companies finding their niche and doing well.</p>
AV
</p>
</p>
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Arie,</p>
I honestly was not looking for an argument, but rather a chance to pick your extensive knowledge of electronics! I was hoping that you could share with us all what you knew. Sorry if you took it as a challenge! I was not hoping or looking for that. I was looking for your insight into that "info kept under wraps" that led you to make statements as you previously did.
</p>
I share your happiness that the quality of new instruments seems to be improving. Sorry if I come across as a Phoenix enthusiast, but (and admitedly this is a very small sample), from the Walker I heard, I was unconvinced that the technological improvements you cite could consistently be heard. It's a good instrument, as I said before. I'm just not convinced that it blows the socks off Phoenix. If it does for you, then fine....
</p>
Peace out,</p>
Andy
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
[quote user="arie v"]
Andy,</P>
Since you did due dilligence and selected Phoenix, I'm sure you can give all the technical details of the Atmel Dream chip that Phoenix uses in their organs. You can tell us why the Dream Chip, which used to be standard computer sound card technology, is a good platform to build organs with, etc. Maybe you could give us details such as signal to noise ratios, sample lengths, # of samples per stop, speed of system data flow, audio channelling data, etc. You will find that it is that kind of info. which is kept under wraps.
</P>
What I will say at this point is that Walker's sampling rate is more than double what Phoenix uses. What this does is give their samples and by extension much better high frequency content. Also, with a Walker, holding big chords on say reeds, it doesn't develop the typical electronic organ mono-color, there is actually a visceral realism to the sound.</P>
As for Allen, their current organs are just updates of the Rennaisance organs. They still use minimal number of samples, short samples do a lot of processing, and flog a fancy reverb system (to cover up for tone generating shortcomings), use too few audio channels, etc. Just hold a chord on an Allen for 10 to 15 seconds, and listen to the tone, and you can tell it isn't up there with M&O and Walker.</P>
One other thing I notice, is that those who speak highly of Phoenix, spend a lot of time talking about cost, that they cost less, or more to the point, you get more for less. That is fair enough, but doesn't address total quality of instrument. One way to get deals is to price one's instrument lower than your competition. Usually, it doesn't work to bid really low, especially if one builds in low volume and custom. Generally, it means no money for marketing, R&D, and hurts future prospects of the business.</P>
I'm just happy that in general the quality of organ installs is getting better, as the potential is higher than it used to be. Generally it is the smaller builders that do the best work, as they are more hands on, are more creative, and their business depends on buyers who appreciate superior results. I'm all for smaller companies finding their niche and doing well.</P>
AV
[/quote]</P>
Arie, </P>
Thanks for the info about the Atmel Dream chip. I had heard that Phoenix used a computer sound card for their tone generation. I think I read somewhere that Phoenix does sample every note of a rank, but I could be mistaken.</P>
Another question brought up is about R&D. Competition forces companies to improve their products. I think that's why Allen recently introduced their Elite series organs, to compete with Walker and Marshall & Ogletree. It will be interesting to see if Allen has any significantly different sample sets and technology to go along with the expanded audio channels. </P>
Bill</P>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Bill,</p>
You're welcome.</p>
It's no great secret that Phoenix uses the Dream chip. It used to be published on some Phoenix related web-sites, but has been taken off. My guess is that the DREAM chip was chosen because the founder of the company used to work for Makin (Johannus) who used the DREAM chip and maybe still do. So he had a head start, knowing how the chip worked, along with the chip having the software to make it run supplied by the manufacturer. Now the DREAM chip is not a nice chip to work with for building organs, so you either do work arounds, or re-write the software, but the chip is not easy to emulate, so you just do your best to build organs with it.
</p>
You see, manufacturers want you to BELIEVE that they are the BEST. But lately, the less information they give, the better. This makes comparisons more difficult, but also they don't really want you to know that their latest and greatest thing, is just a re-fried version of what they did before. Sometimes, the latest and greatest is not even as good as last years version. The problem most everybody these days is facing is a decline in sales, decline in margins so to start an engineering project with a clean slate just isn't done anymore. The future I believe in electronic organs is using PC hardware to do console control and also tone generation, much like M&O did, but also what Hauptwerk and others are doing to make virtual organs. The PC hardware is much more powerful than any organ company's hardware, less likely to become obsolete within 6 months of design, should be easier to fix years down the road etc.</p>
One other thing, about digi organs. I believe they could be made to sound better today even with today's hardware. I think a lot of weaknesses in today's digi organs can be traced to insufficient number of audio channels, speakers that are not creative designs and also rather mediocre in performance. But then churches, committees, buyers are usually not obsessed by audio, especially if it means higher costs, taking up more space etc.</p>
Must call it a day...........</p>
Arie V</p>
</p>Comment
-
Re: walker instruments
Arie,
I believe you are have a lot of good ideas there. Something like the CNMAT/Meyer Sound Spherical Loudspeaker Array would potentially be a creative speaker for instrument building, wouldn't it? With Hauptwerk, you could see organ building change from a hardware problem (consoles and speakers and amps and MIDI controls, etc) to being a software problem (sound samples, the sale of services like integration and voicing, stoplist design, etc), with room for both "types" of organ builders. The Allen dealer we spoke to was so proud of his solution for placing speakers in cradles pointed off in odd directions which he claimed made for a more "organ like" sound. I thought that he just had a band-aid on the basic problem, that their sound system was underpowered. Our Phoenix uses bipolar speakers to achieve a sound field closer to an organ pipe. The CNMAT array would potentially be awesome in reproducing the complex organ sound field!
</p>
If organs really could become more modular, then a Hauptwerk type of solution would actually be a liberating solution both for manufacturers who have to maintain proprietary parts warehouses forever, and for buyers, who could shop around for the best deals on amps and speakers, change the stoplists as needed or desired, put in newer technology as it becomes available, etc. It also implies that you realistically price all of the things that go into an organ, however. What's a day of voicing really worth? What's a set of sound samples really worth? What's the integration of all the parts worth? What's building a console worth? It probably becomes a huge threat to the big names of organ builders if you can sit down and order all the parts you need from some on-line "Organs-R-Us". In some sense, I believe that is the niche that Walker, M&O and Phoenix are taking up. There's still proprietary stuff in the boxes, but they will work with you to achieve the integration of all the "stuff" just as you want, and substitution of different speakers, amps, sample sets, etc is possible. They are "systems integrators", putting the parts together and insuring the quality of the total install.
</p>
So, back on the topic of this forum, do you know what Walker uses for sound generation, and to be fair, what it's strengths and weaknesses are? While the DREAM chip might potentially be difficult to work with and not ideal, a similar case could probably be made for any Intel chip made in the last 30 years used in PC's, and yet, that's the chip that has dominated PC's. In some sense, the ease or difficulty in using a particular chip is not all that important, as long as the sound quality can be achieved, yes?</p>
Oh, one other thing modularity might allow, and that is improving an organ over time. You can't afford the whole thing now? Buy what you can and improve it as you are able to... start with a modest instrument, and then improve it as you are able to buy more amps, speakers, stops, etc. Can't afford that subwoofer that does 10-200Hz now? Well, maybe later on in the life of your instrument you can do it. That's an interesting buying concept to me.
</p>
Andy
</p>Comment
Comment